Sanction for lineout throw not going 5m?

Stu10

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
342
Post Likes
147
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
In the Eng v Scot game yesterday, a FK was awarded when Marler threw into a lineout and the ball did not travel 5m.

Law 18.23.b states:

THROWING INTO A LINEOUT
23. The ball must:

A. Be thrown in straight along the mark of touch; and

B. Reach the five-metre line before it hits the ground or is played.
Sanction: Option of lineout or scrum. If the lineout is chosen and the ball is again not thrown straight, a scrum is awarded to the team that originally threw in the ball.

Did the ref get it wrong?

(Also, Scotland got away with a throw in not traveling 5 at the 24 minute mark, but they were pushed into touch, so no real consequence.)
 
Last edited:

timmad

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2012
Messages
208
Post Likes
55
Current Referee grade:
Level 10
See it so often at all levels (2 or 3 in my local game yesterday). Ref positions near rear of line-out - standing near the front can make it difficult to get to the next phase - hooker throws to front, receiver steps inside the 5m line, play continues. At To3 level, ARs don't seem to call it. At lower levels ref has no chance.
 

Stu10

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
342
Post Likes
147
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
Did Ben O’Keefe get the sanction wrong when he awarded a FK?
 

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,212
Post Likes
333
In the Eng v Scot game yesterday, a FK was awarded when Marler threw into a lineout and the ball did not travel 5m.

Law 18.23.b states:



Did the ref get it wrong?

(Also, Scotland got away with a throw in not traveling 5 at the 24 minute mark, but they were pushed into touch, so no real consequence.)
I think it’s because the referee started refereeing before the ‘simplification’ of the laws. Prior to the rewrite any player stopping the ball going 5M was penalised with a free kick (19.10h in old law book) and a scrum was only really awarded if the thrower didn’t throw it 5M metres. In the simplified version it specifies if the opposition block the throw then it is a free kick. (18.25)
Of course we all know that when the laws were simplified there were no law changes.:)
 

Stu10

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
342
Post Likes
147
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
I think it’s because the referee started refereeing before the ‘simplification’ of the laws. Prior to the rewrite any player stopping the ball going 5M was penalised with a free kick (19.10h in old law book) and a scrum was only really awarded if the thrower didn’t throw it 5M metres. In the simplified version it specifies if the opposition block the throw then it is a free kick. (18.25)
Of course we all know that when the laws were simplified there were no law changes.:)
So even in the "old days" a scrum was awarded if the thrower didn’t throw it 5M metres... So why did the ref award a FK?
 

ianh5979


Referees in England
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
454
Post Likes
38
So even in the "old days" a scrum was awarded if the thrower didn’t throw it 5M metres... So why did the ref award a FK?
The throw would have gone 5 metres, but was stopped from doing so by a players action taking it before it had travelled that distance so FK is correct
 

Stu10

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
342
Post Likes
147
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
The throw would have gone 5 metres, but was stopped from doing so by a players action taking it before it had travelled that distance so FK is correct

Which law supports that decision?

I still think it should be option of lineout or scrum because the ball was played before reaching the 5 metre line, as described in 18.23.b. I don't see the only scenario of the lineout/scrum sanction being the ball simply not travelling 5m without player interaction based on the wording in the law.

B. Reach the five-metre line before it hits the ground or is played.
 
Last edited:

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,003
Post Likes
1,105
A mistaken application of 18.6
 

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,212
Post Likes
333
A mistaken application of 18.6
Thanks. I was wondering where the law had gone during simplification.
It’s not absolutely definite but in the ‘old days’ the general principle was that if the throwing in side stopped the ball or caught the ball before it it travelled 5M then it was a lineout/scrum option. If the opposition did it then it was a free kick. At least that’s how I and my colleagues interpreted the law. It may not have been the totally accurate way to apply the law but it allowed for consistency because the way the law was written wasn’t absolutely clear. Does putting it under the ‘quick throw’ section mean it only applies to quick throws?If it does then it seems pointless to me because I can’t see a player trying a quick throw if opposition are around. Unless of course he/she hopes the referee is going to apply some sort of offside law??
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,104
Post Likes
2,376
this has always been ambiguous, both before and after the rewrite.
It remains ambiguous, but to me if player catches the ball within 5m then a FK is best
 

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,212
Post Likes
333
this has always been ambiguous, both before and after the rewrite.
It remains ambiguous, but to me if player catches the ball within 5m then a FK is best
Yes. Then there is/was the argument over whether you take the ‘offence’ from the position of the lineout player’s feet or the flight of the ball.
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,003
Post Likes
1,105
Thanks. I was wondering where the law had gone during simplification.
It’s not absolutely definite but in the ‘old days’ the general principle was that if the throwing in side stopped the ball or caught the ball before it it travelled 5M then it was a lineout/scrum option. If the opposition did it then it was a free kick. At least that’s how I and my colleagues interpreted the law. It may not have been the totally accurate way to apply the law but it allowed for consistency because the way the law was written wasn’t absolutely clear. Does putting it under the ‘quick throw’ section mean it only applies to quick throws?If it does then it seems pointless to me because I can’t see a player trying a quick throw if opposition are around. Unless of course he/she hopes the referee is going to apply some sort of offside law??
Part of me thinks...

It wasn't a timing issue where the ball was caught at 4.8m.
White took it about 3m from touch. That's borderline prevention
 

Stu10

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
342
Post Likes
147
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
this has always been ambiguous, both before and after the rewrite.
It remains ambiguous, but to me if player catches the ball within 5m then a FK is best

There is arguably some ambiguity around a quick throw in not going 5... law 18.3.c says the ball must reach the five-metre line before it touches the ground or hits a player, sanction: option of lineout or scrum: the example video shows a teammate catching the ball within the 5m channel and the ref awards a scrum (not sure why he does not give the option of a lineout);
whereas law 18.6 says the ball must reach the five-metre line before it is played and a player must not prevent the ball from travelling five metres, sanction: Free-kick... considering the example video for 18.3.c shows a teammate catching the ball, I believe this only applies to a player from the non-throwing side preventing the ball travelling 5 metres - I think this should be stated/clarified to remove ambiguity.

However, I see no ambiguity around a lineout unless I'm still missing something:
  • Law 18.23.b - The ball must reach the five-metre line before it hits the ground or is played. Sanction: Option of lineout or scrum. The video example shows this applies when a player on the throwers team plays the ball before the 5m line (however, it does cause confusion that Ian Tempest awards a FK in the video).
  • Law 18.25 - Opposition players must not block the throw. Sanction: Free-kick.
Part of me thinks...

It wasn't a timing issue where the ball was caught at 4.8m.
White took it about 3m from touch. That's borderline prevention

I believe a FK for "preventing a throw in reaching 5m" only applies to players from the non-throwing team (law 18.25, opposition players).

Do you think catching the ball before the 5m deserves a more severe punishment that the throw not being straight? In both cases the throwing team screws up the throw/catch.
 
Last edited:

Stu10

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
342
Post Likes
147
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
Yes. Then there is/was the argument over whether you take the ‘offence’ from the position of the lineout player’s feet or the flight of the ball.
If there was a FK or penalty offence in a lineout, wouldn't the mark be 15m in from the mark of touch?
 

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,212
Post Likes
333
If there was a FK or penalty offence in a lineout, wouldn't the mark be 15m in from the mark of touch?
Sorry confused you. I was referring to whether the ball had actually gone 5M or whether you would allow a player who was standing inside the 5M to reach forward and play the ball before it reached 5M. Any penalisation would result in the sanction on the 15M line. Bit clearer?
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,003
Post Likes
1,105
There is arguably some ambiguity around a quick throw in not going 5... law 18.3.c says the ball must reach the five-metre line before it touches the ground or hits a player, sanction: option of lineout or scrum: the example video shows a teammate catching the ball within the 5m channel and the ref awards a scrum (not sure why he does not give the option of a lineout);
whereas law 18.6 says the ball must reach the five-metre line before it is played and a player must not prevent the ball from travelling five metres, sanction: Free-kick... considering the example video for 18.3.c shows a teammate catching the ball, I believe this only applies to a player from the non-throwing side preventing the ball travelling 5 metres - I think this should be stated/clarified to remove ambiguity.

However, I see no ambiguity around a lineout unless I'm still missing something:
  • Law 18.23.b - The ball must reach the five-metre line before it hits the ground or is played. Sanction: Option of lineout or scrum. The video example shows this applies when a player on the throwers team plays the ball before the 5m line (however, it does cause confusion that Ian Tempest awards a FK in the video).
  • Law 18.25 - Opposition players must not block the throw. Sanction: Free-kick.


I believe a FK for "preventing a throw in reaching 5m" only applies to players from the non-throwing team (law 18.25, opposition players).

Do you think catching the ball before the 5m deserves a more severe punishment that the throw not being straight? In both cases the throwing team screws up the throw/catch.
Yes. Deliberate acts deserve a harsher punishment than shit skills.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
10,965
Post Likes
1,281
So even in the "old days" a scrum was awarded if the thrower didn’t throw it 5M metres... So why did the ref award a FK?
whatever the answer ... a FK in that position would always be taken as a scrum anyway so its rather a moot point wrt outcome.

didds
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,531
Post Likes
438
I've asked this of several experienced refs and they've all said that it's a FK if the ball is caught before 5, and a scrum if the ball doesn't make it 5m before hitting the ground. Plus, the video shows a FK being awarded for it. I've heard unofficially that there's an error in the current lawbook, the "Sanction: scrum" should be a sublaw higher leaving two FK offences.
 

Ciaran Trainor


Referees in England
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
2,679
Post Likes
266
Location
Walney Island
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
whatever the answer ... a FK in that position would always be taken as a scrum anyway so its rather a moot point wrt outcome.

didds
not if you are getting hammered in the scrums which can happen even at my level 7
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
10,965
Post Likes
1,281
true. Lets say then (IME etc) "usually" notwithstanding obvious caveats
 
Top